Autopsy shows 27-inch iMac is positively austere on the inside

More internal space means a bigger hard disk drive.

The first shipments of Apple's new 27-inch iMacs have begun arriving at the doorsteps of early-bird buyers, and MacRumors forum user R.OG has posted one of the Web's first teardowns of the flagship desktop. The internals follow the same general layout as the 21.5-inch iMac, which we commented on last month, but there are a few notable differences.

The most obvious is that the 27-inch iMac has room for a full 3.5-inch desktop hard disk drive. The one pictured is an OEM version of the Western Digital WD10EALX, a 7200 RPM Blue drive. The 21.5-inch iMac, by contrast, uses a 2.5-inch HGST Travelstar 5K1000 HDD, spinning at 5400 RPM.

The images posted by R.OG reveal that like the 21.5-inch iMac, the 27-inch iMac's GPU shares space with the CPU on the logic board. The CPU and GPU heat sink support braces are clearly visible on the back of the logic board. Previous iMacs used an MXM daughterboard for their video cards, coupled with an extensive heat pipe and heat sink assembly to channel heat away from it.

The Kepler-based Nvidia GPUs on the new generation of iMacs are more miserly with their thermal envelope, and Apple has engineered a way to cool the entire system with a single fan, even when the iMac is configured with the top build-to-order CPU and GPU options (an Ivy Bridge i7-3770 and a GeForce GTX 680MX, respectively).

The speakers are larger than on the 21.5-inch iMac, owing to there being more space inside, and the power supply daughterboard below the HDD is larger than in the 21.5-inch iMac. As with its smaller sibling, the 27-inch iMac has wireless antennae scattered around the edge of the enclosure, and it's secured together with sticky foam. One of the challenges for would-be DIY enthusiasts is getting through the foam to get to the iMac's internals; a guitar pick apparently works well as a foam cutter. However, even more of a challenge than that is how to get the iMac back together after you're done fiddling with its guts.

Interestingly, Mac reseller and parts shop Other World Computing has begun selling a RAM upgrade kit for 21.5-inch iMacs which includes a package of sticky foam for resealing iMacs. The 27-inch iMac doesn't need a RAM upgrade kit—its RAM is user-accessible through a port on the rear—but we speculate a similar "Open & Close Your iMac" parts kit will be available soon.

We're expecting to receive our 27-inch iMac early next week. Andrew Cunningham has already reviewed the 21.5-inch model, but we'll have a comparative review of the 27-inch version up shortly after UPS drops it off.

I must have been a fool for holding out hope against all logic that Apple wouldn't shaft their higher end consumers with this sticky foam bologna. God knows they have enough real estate inside to make magnets work, and I'm refusing to believe that a company so renowned for their design genius couldn't find a way.

I must have been a fool for holding out hope against all logic that Apple wouldn't shaft their higher end consumers with this sticky foam bologna. God knows they have enough real estate inside to make magnets work, and I'm refusing to believe that a company so renowned for their design genius couldn't find a way.

You mean shaft the very tiny minority of users that are ever going to open the iMac up to upgrade it.Their logic is simple, and probably like this:

I must have been a fool for holding out hope against all logic that Apple wouldn't shaft their higher end consumers with this sticky foam bologna. God knows they have enough real estate inside to make magnets work, and I'm refusing to believe that a company so renowned for their design genius couldn't find a way.

You mean shaft the very tiny minority of users that are ever going to open the iMac up to upgrade it.Their logic is simple, and probably like this:

Granted, but let us not pretend that sticky foam was magically introduced to the world this fall, or somehow the application of it was never put into an electronic device before this latest roll out of Apple goods. The cost saving measure could have been put in years prior, but it wasn't. I won't put forth supposition on why this is, because I'm sure many reasons exist that go well beyond my capacity to understand, but that they could have prior and purposefully didn't is a point that sticks out quite clearly for me.

Why would Apple use a 5400RPM slug in the 21.5? Ridiculus. And why change the HDD form factor in the 27 to a 3.5?

Apple is just so fanatically greedy.

The iMac has always had a 3.5" hdd, it's the 21" that has changed. The reason for that is that a 3.5" hdd would not fit in the slim chassis. With no such limitation in the 27", there is no reason to shift that to 2.5" drive as well - this way they can fit a 3tb drive. The only greedy bit here is the 5400 rpm drive in the 21"er, which only is an issue because Fusion Drive is optional in the first revision.

Why would Apple use a 5400RPM slug in the 21.5? Ridiculus. And why change the HDD form factor in the 27 to a 3.5?

Apple is just so fanatically greedy.

One possibility is that 2.5" 7200 rpm drives have a high failure rate leading to replacement costs and user dissatisfaction. This would explain why the larger Mac has them while the smaller one doesn't. The other possibility is that Apple feels performance sensitive users will use fusion drives and that internal testing has shown that the higher rpm hardly ever matters when used in a fusion drive.

I have never understood all-in-ones. They seem to be made for people that want a computer as a decorative piece, not as something they actually use for any length of time. If I got a mac desktop it would be a mac mini, and then I could get whatever monitor I please, and have it placed the height and tilt I want. Not some non-ergonomic configuration like the imacs force you into.

Well, imo, iMac's current popularity is due to two factors:1. Apple's true desktop form factor computers are ridiculously outdated.2. Believe it or not, there is a market for extremely minimalist PCs, with monitor, wireless keyboard and wireless mouse being all clutters up the desk, with no cables except power. That appeals to a lot of people, and is sufficient to do a heck of lot of different tasks.

I have never understood all-in-ones. They seem to be made for people that want a computer as a decorative piece, not as something they actually use for any length of time. If I got a mac desktop it would be a mac mini, and then I could get whatever monitor I please, and have it placed the height and tilt I want. Not some non-ergonomic configuration like the imacs force you into.

Well, imo, iMac's current popularity is due to two factors:1. Apples true desktop form factor computer are ridiculously outdated.2. Believe it or not, there is a market for extremely minimalist PCs, with monitor, wireless keyboard and wireless mouse being all clutters up the desk, with no cables except power. That appeals to a lot of people, and is sufficient to do a heck of lot of different tasks.

Why is #2 a "believe it or not?" In general, for any random appliance I own, I would prefer a cleaner, "minimalist" design that works well and is optimized, to one with a thousand bells and whistles that I will never use, but add space and complexity. A computer is not an appliance to you or me, but most customers will think of it in that way. They see a computer that works well and is beautiful, and it appeals to them. They would never consider opening it anyway so that is not perceived as a minus.

I have never understood all-in-ones. They seem to be made for people that want a computer as a decorative piece, not as something they actually use for any length of time. If I got a mac desktop it would be a mac mini, and then I could get whatever monitor I please, and have it placed the height and tilt I want. Not some non-ergonomic configuration like the imacs force you into.

Well, imo, iMac's current popularity is due to two factors:1. Apples true desktop form factor computer are ridiculously outdated.2. Believe it or not, there is a market for extremely minimalist PCs, with monitor, wireless keyboard and wireless mouse being all clutters up the desk, with no cables except power. That appeals to a lot of people, and is sufficient to do a heck of lot of different tasks.

Why is #2 a "believe it or not?" In general, for any random appliance I own, I would prefer a cleaner, "minimalist" design that works well and is optimized, to one with a thousand bells and whistles that I will never use, but add space and complexity. A computer is not an appliance to you or me, but most customers will think of it in that way. They see a computer that works well and is beautiful, and it appeals to them. They would never consider opening it anyway so that is not perceived as a minus.

I phrased it that way because I think we all know, and have seen over and over, some technically-oriented people's inability to think beyond their own use cases (see any iPad-related article circa early 2010).

I have never understood all-in-ones. They seem to be made for people that want a computer as a decorative piece, not as something they actually use for any length of time. If I got a mac desktop it would be a mac mini, and then I could get whatever monitor I please, and have it placed the height and tilt I want. Not some non-ergonomic configuration like the imacs force you into.

Laptops are all in ones, and are the most popular form factor right now.

You mean like the magents that destray data on hard drives? How powerful would the magnets have to be to secure the hard drive in place?

I don't think that what you are talking about is what everyone else is talking about. Magnets were used previously to secure the screens in place. They were never used to secure the hard drives of aluminum iMacs.

Argh, fixed. I meant Ivy Bridge. That'll teach me to write before I've had all of the coffee.

Q1DM6 wrote:

WD Blue. What pricks the folks at Apple are. They are scrounging for every penny in what is supposed to be a Premium computer.

The implication, though, is that Apple sees the most common storage configuration as being the 1TB Fusion Drive, trailed by the 3TB one. Fusion Drive goes a pretty long way toward obviating any HDD-based bottlenecks under most usage scenarios.

Quote:

I don't think that what you are talking about is what everyone else is talking about. Magnets were used previously to secure the screens in place. They were never used to secure the hard drives of aluminum iMacs.

Well, magnets were previously used to secure a relatively light glass bezel. The actual LCD screen was securely bolted to the aluminum frame. Securing the new iMac's entire screen with just magnets would be kind of silly.

You mean like the magents that destray data on hard drives? How powerful would the magnets have to be to secure the hard drive in place?

He was referencing the magnets used in the prior generation to hold the *display* in the chassis, not the HDD. The HDD is still held in by brackets to the best of my knowledge. The magnets in the prior gen had no ill effects on the HDD as far as I am aware.

With regard to the foam, I think that the removable display glass was a fine concession to those of us who do tinker inside their computers. I know that I will not be buying an iMac this gen (not for a want of wanting one though...), but I wish that those who are had that option.

WD Blue. What pricks the folks at Apple are. They are scrounging for every penny in what is supposed to be a Premium computer.

The implication, though, is that Apple sees the most common storage configuration as being the 1TB Fusion Drive, trailed by the 3TB one. Fusion Drive goes a pretty long way toward obviating any HDD-based bottlenecks under most usage scenarios.

I can attest to the Fusion Drive being remarkably snappy. I rolled one in my Sandy Bridge 13-inch MBP. See you later optical drive.

The implication, though, is that Apple sees the most common storage configuration as being the 1TB Fusion Drive, trailed by the 3TB one. Fusion Drive goes a pretty long way toward obviating any HDD-based bottlenecks under most usage scenarios.

The fact is that they're still using a blue instead of a black, with no discernible reason other than saving a buck. The consumer is being shorted in this instance, and is paying premium price for lesser product.

You mean like the magents that destray data on hard drives? How powerful would the magnets have to be to secure the hard drive in place?

He was referencing the magnets used in the prior generation to hold the *display* in the chassis, not the HDD. The HDD is still held in by brackets to the best of my knowledge. The magnets in the prior gen had no ill effects on the HDD as far as I am aware.

With regard to the foam, I think that the removable display glass was a fine concession to those of us who do tinker inside their computers. I know that I will not be buying an iMac this gen (not for a want of wanting one though...), but I wish that those who are had that option.

Edit: Beaten to it.

Thing is, in previous generations the magnets don't hold the display, just the screen, the display weighs 10-20 times more than the screen, not sure magnets could hold it safely in place.

I must have been a fool for holding out hope against all logic that Apple wouldn't shaft their higher end consumers with this sticky foam bologna. God knows they have enough real estate inside to make magnets work, and I'm refusing to believe that a company so renowned for their design genius couldn't find a way.

People who believe in upgrades don't buy Apples.

That window is certainly starting to shut as evident by the recent iMac, yes, but stand out machines like the 2012 Mac Mini are highly regarded as easy to open and tinker with. Apple is far from being a lost cause in the user serviceable/upgrade field.

You mean like the magents that destray data on hard drives? How powerful would the magnets have to be to secure the hard drive in place?

He was referencing the magnets used in the prior generation to hold the *display* in the chassis, not the HDD. The HDD is still held in by brackets to the best of my knowledge. The magnets in the prior gen had no ill effects on the HDD as far as I am aware.

With regard to the foam, I think that the removable display glass was a fine concession to those of us who do tinker inside their computers. I know that I will not be buying an iMac this gen (not for a want of wanting one though...), but I wish that those who are had that option.

Edit: Beaten to it.

Thing is, in previous generations the magnets don't hold the display, just the screen, the display weighs 10-20 times more than the screen, not sure magnets could hold it safely in place.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but it seems like we're forgetting just how much empty real estate there actually is in the new iMac redesign. On my 2008 24" iMac, which once cracked open is clearly jam packed with electronic goodies, there are (according to my count) 14 small magnetic areas holding the front screen in place. If longer bands of magnetic areas were added, I don't think it's inconceivable that it could easily support the (comparatively much thinner and smaller than my 2008 iMac) screen and display unit just as well as cheap, heat sensitive adhesive.

I have never understood all-in-ones. They seem to be made for people that want a computer as a decorative piece, not as something they actually use for any length of time. If I got a mac desktop it would be a mac mini, and then I could get whatever monitor I please, and have it placed the height and tilt I want. Not some non-ergonomic configuration like the imacs force you into.

I certainly agree there are issues with all-in-ones, but did you know that most (all recent?) imacs have an adapter to make them vesa mount compatible? You can mount it like a monitor on any sort of ergonomic arm you choose, albeit for the previous imacs (esp.27in) you had to get a pretty strong arm for that sort of thing, but it is possible.

You mean like the magents that destray data on hard drives? How powerful would the magnets have to be to secure the hard drive in place?

He was referencing the magnets used in the prior generation to hold the *display* in the chassis, not the HDD. The HDD is still held in by brackets to the best of my knowledge. The magnets in the prior gen had no ill effects on the HDD as far as I am aware.

With regard to the foam, I think that the removable display glass was a fine concession to those of us who do tinker inside their computers. I know that I will not be buying an iMac this gen (not for a want of wanting one though...), but I wish that those who are had that option.

Edit: Beaten to it.

Thing is, in previous generations the magnets don't hold the display, just the screen, the display weighs 10-20 times more than the screen, not sure magnets could hold it safely in place.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but it seems like we're forgetting just how much empty real estate there actually is in the new iMac redesign. On my 2008 24" iMac, which once cracked open is clearly jam packed with electronic goodies, there are (according to my count) 14 small magnetic areas holding the front screen in place. If longer bands of magnetic areas were added, I don't think it's inconceivable that it could easily support the (comparatively much thinner and smaller than my 2008 iMac) screen and display unit just as well as cheap, heat sensitive adhesive.

Think of the space in 3D not just area, sure it seems like there's a lot of area wasted, but you can't fit much of anything in most of it due to little space between it and the screen, the screen is not 1mm thick after all.

The magnets used in the 2010/2011 models are already thicker than the edge of the screen, and the taper doesn't seem to be enough to be able to fit the magnets in place before you reach the end of the bezel and where the screen actually starts. you would have to secure the display not at the edges but towards the center, and then you're where the speakers are.

The implication, though, is that Apple sees the most common storage configuration as being the 1TB Fusion Drive, trailed by the 3TB one. Fusion Drive goes a pretty long way toward obviating any HDD-based bottlenecks under most usage scenarios.

The fact is that they're still using a blue instead of a black, with no discernible reason other than saving a buck. The consumer is being shorted in this instance, and is paying premium price for lesser product.

It's a good thing Apple isn't skimping on the display resolution or integrated graphics, right?

Seriously though, it's not a bad drive, and the real upgrade is to add an SSD to enable Fusion.

I wonder how long it will be until the sticky foam starts to get 'tired' on iMacs that are run hard in poorly ventilated work spaces or warm climates?

Sometimes I wish there was a market for class-action-law-suit futures.

When you think about it rationally from Apple's point of view, on the scale Apple is buying parts, it probably saves a lot of money to use sticky foam over screws when you consider the supply chain for screws and related parts as well as simplifying the assembly processes. When you factor that against the percentage of people who are the target market for the iMac who also like to open the cases and fiddle with non-user serviceable parts it is hard to see why they waited as long as they have to make this production change.

They are long past being a 'computer company' and are well in the realm of consumer electronics. That is the natural response to the integration of computers into our every day lives from a company that makes their money on iPods, iPhones and content (media, apps, etc). For many people it isn't a computer, it is 'their email' or 'their facebook'. It would never occur to them to open it up and tinker with the hardware or the software. Do I like it? No. But there's no point in complaining about it.

I expect my next computer for home use will be a Mac but the next box I have my employer buy for me will likely be something running some variation of Linux. If not the next one, then almost certainly the one after that.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but it seems like we're forgetting just how much empty real estate there actually is in the new iMac redesign. On my 2008 24" iMac, which once cracked open is clearly jam packed with electronic goodies, there are (according to my count) 14 small magnetic areas holding the front screen in place. If longer bands of magnetic areas were added, I don't think it's inconceivable that it could easily support the (comparatively much thinner and smaller than my 2008 iMac) screen and display unit just as well as cheap, heat sensitive adhesive.

Again, the only thing the magnets are holding on your 2008 iMac is the thin and light glass screen face. The "screen"--the LCD panel and all of its electronics--is screwed to the frame. It's considerably heavier.

Considering that end-user repairability is a very low priority for Apple, it wouldn't make any sense at all from their perspective to use magnets, which are comparatively much more expensive than a bit of sticky foam. For the geniuses that have to actually repair the things, Apple can design a plastic foam-cutter tool and ship that to stores, along with a roll of replacement foam.

Look at it from Apple's perspective. The goal is to produce eye-catching computers that sell and that reflect the Apple brand. The goal isn't to make it so you can crack open an iMac and add RAM.

Interestingly, Mac reseller and parts shop Other World Computing has begun selling a RAM upgrade kit for 21.5-inch iMacs which includes a package of sticky foam for resealing iMacs. The 27-inch iMac doesn't need a RAM upgrade kit—its RAM is user-accessible through a port on the rear—but we speculate a similar "Open & Close Your iMac" parts kit will be available soon.

My, how time flies. Remember when the new iMac was impossible to open, and there was no way an average person could deal with a glued-on screen? Oh, those were the days. I almost miss 'em.

In addition, just as a nod to the hippies, magnets are not as cheap to mine or to manufacture as their ubiquity might suggest. Glue is cheaper to make and cheaper to apply in manufacturing. In addition, magnets require either expensive and destructive mining operations or the use of considerable energy to manufacture them, either of which would add to the cost of the machine's production. And only for the sake of a removable panel that only a small fraction of customers will ever remove.

Magnets are cool, and it was a clever solution on previous iMacs, but they don't really belong here, and frankly, they never really did.

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.